Actuaries providing information in relation to pension transfers are bound to uphold standards and codes of conduct set out by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, the professional body for actuaries, and the Financial Reporting Council, the oversight body for the actuarial profession. Both organisations can investigate complaints against individual actuaries (but not organisations) and have established complaints and disciplinary processes.

Where a pension scheme trustee, sponsoring employer or member believes they have suffered a loss as a result of incomplete actuarial information, redress would normally be sought through the courts under professional negligence or breach of contract.

The mean and median waiting time between a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeal being lodged and the Department submitting its response to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), for initial clearances and award review clearances in the calendar year 2025, was 5 weeks.

The Department does not hold data on when a tribunal hearing date is set. This information is in the domain of HMCTS.

We are increasing resources available for writing appeal responses by redeploying staff and making overtime available.

We are also looking to make appeal writing more efficient by improving the programme that decision makers use. The improved tool will integrate better with other DWP computer systems, which will make it faster and easier to use than the current process.

We will continue working to make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey so people get the support they are entitled to without needing to appeal.

The department wants to protect parents' rights to express a preference for a setting, whilst ensuring that local authorities make placement decisions that consider the preference and needs of other children and young people in the area. In the government's proposal, if parents do not agree with a local authority's decision about the setting, they will be able to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal would be able to consider whether the local authority's decision is reasonable. If they found against the local authority, they could order the local authority to reconsider. In the proposals, the Tribunal will not name the placement for the child or young person.

We are carefully reviewing responses to the ‘Special educational needs and disabilities reform: putting children and young people first’ consultation, including those about placement decisions, and considering how placement decisions will work in practice. Our aim is to ensure that families have robust independent escalation routes and to allow local authorities to make decisions in a more holistic way.

We will publish final proposals in due course.

The Ministry of Justice is only able to collect data on the timeliness of appeals; it does not record or hold information related to an appellant’s previous convictions or offending, or how long the overall deportation process takes.

We have taken steps to speed up appeals brought by Foreign National Offenders (FNOs). The latest figures show that, in 2025/26, the average time taken from receipt to disposal was 36 weeks for Detained HM Prison appeals and 16 weeks for Detained Immigration Removal Centre appeals, compared with 43 weeks and 20 weeks respectively in 2023/24 (Source: DIA_dataset_2025-26_Q4.ods). Further, we will shortly commence the 24-week statutory timeframe for appeals from those in supported accommodation and non-detained FNOs liable to deportation, as legislated in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

Since the July 2024 election, there have been 9,805 removals of FNOs, to end of March 2026. This is 36% up on the 7,185 returns from the previous 21 months from October 2022 to June 2024.

The data has been taken from the local management information system with financial year set as April to March. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that are available. For this reason, the appeals shown in the above table may not match published totals. Data does not include refusals to make a plan, as that is the step before deciding the content of a plan.

The Ministry of Justice is only able to collect data on the timeliness of appeals; it does not record or hold information related to an appellant’s previous convictions or offending, or how long the overall deportation process takes.

We have taken steps to speed up appeals brought by Foreign National Offenders (FNOs). The latest figures show that, in 2025/26, the average time taken from receipt to disposal was 36 weeks for Detained HM Prison appeals and 16 weeks for Detained Immigration Removal Centre appeals, compared with 43 weeks and 20 weeks respectively in 2023/24 (Source: DIA_dataset_2025-26_Q4.ods). Further, we will shortly commence the 24-week statutory timeframe for appeals from those in supported accommodation and non-detained FNOs liable to deportation, as legislated in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

Since the July 2024 election, there have been 9,805 removals of FNOs, to end of March 2026. This is 36% up on the 7,185 returns from the previous 21 months from October 2022 to June 2024.

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on appeals against magistrates’ court decisions heard in the Crown Court in the Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly release which can be downloaded from the Criminal Court Statistics landing page here: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK. Table C11 provides details of appeals heard at the Crown Court.

However, data is not centrally recorded on the specific grounds of appeal, including whether an appeal relates to the rejection of an exceptional hardship argument in proceedings concerning drivers liable to disqualification under the totting-up provisions.

This information may be contained within individual court records. However, identifying and reviewing relevant cases would require a manual examination of those records and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The information requested is not held centrally as the case management system does not record whether a Nursing and Midwifery Council case resulted in the original decision being overturned.

Determining the number of such cases over the last 12 or 24 months would require a manual review of individual case files and court orders across a substantial number of cases. This information could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SATs marking in 2026 has been completed and results have been delivered. Marking was subject to the department’s required quality assurance processes, including marker training, qualification exercises and ongoing quality checks. The standards maintenance process, which ensures results remain comparable with previous years, was completed on 2 July and can only be completed with sufficiently accurate and representative data.

Pearson have fully apologised for their failure to deliver the key stage 2 results on time and for the impact this has had on schools, pupils and parents. The department will use all the provisions in the contract to ensure that Pearson is held to account and we will explore all possible options for future delivery. The government has confirmed that there will be a full independent review into how such serious failings have occurred, with further details and terms of reference to be set out shortly.

Following feedback received from schools, Ministers have extended the deadline for applications for reviews of test results until 7 September 2026, allowing schools to submit requests during term time.

Decisions on the recovery of appeals are made in accordance with the policy as set out in a 2008 Written Ministerial Statement, which can be found on gov.uk here.

As the Planning Inspectorate decision in question is now subject to a legal challenge, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the implications of it or the original proposal.

The expedited written representations planning appeal procedure, first introduced in 2009, was recently expanded to a broader range of appeals so that all planning appeals against decisions on applications made on or after 1 April 2026 may be decided through the expedited appeal procedure.

This process requires that any representations submitted at the planning application stage, including by residents, will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration as part of the appeal.

If it becomes apparent during the appeal process that the expedited appeal procedure is no longer appropriate, the appeal may be transferred to an alternative appeal procedure.

My Department has no plans to review the recently expanded expedited written representations planning appeal procedure.

Where a Universal Credit award is revised, established processes ensure that any resulting debt impact is communicated to Debt Management so that recovery action can be updated promptly.

Such decisions are processed through established appeals and decision-making processes, and where a claimant’s liability changes, the relevant information is recorded on DWP systems and communicated to Debt Management so that any necessary recovery action can be updated.

Where a tribunal decision overturns a Universal Credit overpayment, the decision is implemented through established DWP appeals and decision-making processes. Any resulting change to the claimant’s liability is recorded on the relevant systems and shared with Debt Management, enabling recovery action, including deductions from earnings, to be updated or ceased promptly, where appropriate.

These clauses will allow for faster progression of appeals. This will introduce greater efficiency into the system, by encouraging earlier disclosure, while maintaining fairness, independence and ensuring justice is done.

Clause 9 provides the Home Secretary with powers to set statutory timeframes for appeals and request expedition in certain cases, although the IIAA retains the final decision. The number and categories of cases subject to these statutory timeframes are yet to be determined. Compliance with timeframes will be monitored, with reporting obligations and escalation to the IIAA Chief Executive where delays occur.